Do I Need the 17mm 1.8 or is it just GAS?

Ever since trading my silver 45 and 75s for black versions, I have been thinking about picking up the 17mm 1.8 in black when it comes out. For much of the past year the Pany 25m has been my most used "normal" lens... however, for unknown reasons I am starting to feel this burning desire to have a 35mm equivalent as the normal and that Oly 17m 1.8 looks slick and is slightly smaller. Of course, I already have an old Pany 20m that never gets used, which has the smaller form-factor and wider field, so I am questioning why I am drawn to the 17m.

If you do not use the 20mm which is a great lens you are probably having GAS. If you must get a lens I would recommend that you go to the UWA such as the P7-17, O9-18 or the fishy R7.5. All those lens will open a new dimension for you that is not supported by your current gear.

Ever since trading my silver 45 and 75s for black versions, I have been thinking about picking up the 17mm 1.8 in black when it comes out. For much of the past year the Pany 25m has been my most used "normal" lens... however, for unknown reasons I am starting to feel this burning desire to have a 35mm equivalent as the normal and that Oly 17m 1.8 looks slick and is slightly smaller. Of course, I already have an old Pany 20m that never gets used, which has the smaller form-factor and wider field, so I am questioning why I am drawn to the 17m.

Anyone have any words of advice?

Click to expand...

I guess my answer to that would be it depends on what you are going to use it for, you already have a 20mm is 3mm really gonna make that much difference

Why don't you use the Panasonic 20mm? If it is mostly due to AF speed on an Olympus body, maybe the new Olympus 17mm would make sense. Otherwise, I find 20mm to be a close enough to 35mm most of the time, and the P20 is pretty great, especially with sharpness (even wide open in the center).

I think the reason why you don't use the 20/1.7 is because it's too close to the 25mm in FOV. The 17 would be different enough and would also make for a great street lens. Plus the AF is very noticeably faster on the 17/1.8. nust don't hang onto both the 17 and 20 -- sell the 20 to help finance the 17.

With other cameras I quite like having the choice of 35/50 (35mm) or 24/35 (Aps) so I could see having 17/25 in 43 being quite good. 20mm is just too close to either 25 or 17mm that it is a good compromise over having both but not quite the same as having both. If you love the 25mm I say sell the 20mm and get the 17mm, have the best of both.

You definitely don't "need" it, but - yeah - it seems like it would fit well with your 25mm. Like the previous poster, I'm a fan of having the standard options available, like 24, 35 and 50mm. I really liked my 20mm f/1.7 but if I'd've had the 25mm I, like you, would likely never have used it.

I think AF speed is a part of the reason I don't use the 20 that often, plus it is almost a bit too small on the EM5. However, I am going to give it another try this weekend. I think a 17-25-45-75 kit makes more sense. The only problem is that I imagine that will lead to me feeling the "need" to drop the 14 on the wide end and start GAS for the 12.

If I was you, I'd sell the 20mm and get the 14mm - and you'll still have around $100 left over.

Personally, I found that the 14mm and the 20mm were a little too close together for me to use both a lot. I expect you'd find the same issue with the 25mm and the 17mm (you're already having it with the 25mm and the 20mm).

I have the 14 and do shoot it quite a bit... I just never fell in love with the 20m, but will carry it this weekend since I am going to the Ravens game and can't take a bag, so I will put the 75m on the camera, and the 14 and 20 in each pocket. (Maybe the 45 as well)

I bought it on the basis of 80% wanting a 35mm frame and 20% GAS. Yep, it's a better gadget than the 20 in that it has faster AF and that ring which (sort of and if you're being very generous) gives you a rangefinder option but if sharpness and general quality of the picture is your criteria, then you won't be able to escape the fact that the 20 is just better. If I had properly tried the 17/1.8 beforehand I wouldn't have purchased it. The superiority of the 25/1.4 against the 17 I could only imagine, you'll probably find yourself not wanting to use the 17.

Do keep that 14mm though - lovely bit of glass, in so far as the way it renders shades of sun and handles sun flare which in my experience is better than the 20. I like to try and shoot using all of the frame in my pictures and in that context, it really is different to the 20 imho.